Trolley Dilemma Kill One Person to Save Five

Philosophers love to conduct thought experiments. Often these involve rather bizarre situations, and critics wonder how relevant these thought experiments are to the real world. But the point of the experiments is to help us clarify our thinking by pushing it to the limits.  The â€Å"trolley dilemma† is one of the most famous of these philosophical imaginings. The Basic Trolley Problem A version of this moral dilemma was first put forward in 1967 by the British moral philosopher Phillipa Foot, well-known as one of those responsible for reviving virtue ethics. Here’s the basic dilemma: A tram is running down a track and is out control. If it continues on its course unchecked and undiverted, it will run over five people who have been tied to the tracks. You have the chance to divert it onto another track simply by pulling a lever.  If you do this, though, the tram will kill a man who happens to be standing on this other track. What should you do? The Utilitarian Response For many utilitarians, the problem is a no-brainer. Our duty is to promote the greatest happiness of the greatest number.  Five lives saved is better than one life saved.  Therefore, the right thing to do is to pull the lever. Utilitarianism is a form of consequentialism.  It judges actions by their consequences. But there are many who think that we have to consider other aspects of action as well. In the case of the trolley dilemma, many are troubled by the fact that if they pull the lever they will be actively engaged in causing the death of an innocent person. According to our normal moral intuitions, this is wrong, and we should pay some heed to our normal moral intuitions. So-called â€Å"rule utilitarians† may well agree with this point of view.  They hold that we should not judge every action by its consequences. Instead, we should establish a set of moral rules to follow according to which rules will promote the greatest happiness of the greatest number in the long term.  And then we should follow those rules, even if in specific cases doing so may not produce the best consequences. But so-called â€Å"act utilitarians† judge each act by its consequences; so they will simply do the math and pull the lever. Moreover, they will argue that there is no significant difference between causing a death by pulling the lever and not preventing a death by refusing to pull the lever.  One is equally responsible for the consequences in either case. Those who think that it would be right to divert the tram often appeal to what philosophers call the doctrine of double effect. Simply put, this doctrine states that it is morally acceptable to do something that causes a serious harm in the course of promoting some greater good if the harm in question is not an intended consequence of the action but is, rather, an unintended side-effect. The fact that the harm caused is predictable doesn’t matter.  What matters is whether or not the agent intends it. The doctrine of double effect plays an important role in just war theory. It has often been used to justify certain military actions which cause â€Å"collateral damage.† An example of such an action would be the bombing of an ammunition dump that not only destroys the military target but also causes a number of civilian deaths. Studies show that the majority of people today, at least in modern Western societies, say that they would pull the lever.  However, they respond differently when the situation is tweaked. The Fat Man on the Bridge Variation The situation is the same as before: a runaway tram threatens to kill five people. A very heavy man is sitting on a wall on a bridge spanning the track. You can stop the train by pushing him off the bridge onto the track in front of the train. He will die, but the five will be saved. (You can’t opt to jump in front of the tram yourself since you aren’t big enough to stop it.) From a simple utilitarian point of view, the dilemma is the same — do you sacrifice one life to save five? — and the answer is the same: yes. Interestingly, however, many people who would pull the lever in the first scenario would not push the man in this second scenario. This raises two questions: The Moral Question: If Pulling the Lever Is Right, Why Would Pushing the Man Be Wrong? One argument for treating the cases differently is to say that the doctrine of double effect no longer applies if one pushes the man off the bridge. His death is no longer an unfortunate side-effect of your decision to divert the tram; his death is the very means by which the tram is stopped.  So you can hardly say in this case that when you pushed him off the bridge you weren’t intending to cause his death. A closely related argument is based on a moral principle made famous by the great German philosopher Immanuel Kant (1724-1804). According to Kant, we should always treat people as ends in themselves, never merely as a means to our own ends. This is commonly known, reasonably enough, as the â€Å"ends principle.† It is fairly obvious that if you push the man off the bridge to stop the tram, you are using him purely as a means. To treat him as the end would be to respect the fact that he is a free, rational being, to explain the situation to him, and suggest that he sacrifice himself to save the lives of those tied to the track. Of course, there is no guarantee that he would be persuaded.  And before the discussion had got very far the tram would have probably already passed under the bridge! The Psychological Question: Why Will People Pull the Lever but Not Push the Man? Psychologists are concerned not with establishing what is right or wrong but with understanding why people are so much more reluctant to push a man to his death than to cause his death by pulling a lever. The Yale psychologist Paul Bloom suggests that the reason lies in the fact that our causing the man’s death by actually touching him arouses in us a much stronger emotional response. In every culture, there is some sort of taboo against murder.  An unwillingness to kill an innocent person with our own hands is deeply ingrained in most people. This conclusion seems to be supported by people’s response to another variation on the basic dilemma. The Fat Man Standing on the Trapdoor Variation   Here the situation is the same as before, but instead of sitting on a wall the fat man is standing on a trapdoor built into the bridge. Once again you can now stop the train and save five lives by simply pulling a lever. But in this case, pulling the lever will not divert the train.  Instead, it will open the trapdoor, causing the man to fall through it and onto the track in front of the train. Generally speaking, people are not as ready to pull this lever as they are to pull the lever that diverts the train.  But significantly more people are willing to stop the train in this way than are prepared to push the man off the bridge.   The Fat Villain on the Bridge Variation Suppose now that the man on the bridge is the very same man who has tied the five innocent people to the track. Would you be willing to push this person to his death to save the five? A majority say they would, and this course of action seems fairly easy to justify.  Given that he is willfully trying to cause innocent people to die, his own death strikes many people as thoroughly deserved. The situation is more complicated, though, if the man is simply someone who has done other bad actions. Suppose in the past he has committed murder or rape and that he hasn’t paid any penalty for these crimes. Does that justify violating Kant’s ends principle and using him as a mere means?   The Close Relative on the Track Variation Here is one last variation to consider.  Go back to the original scenario–you can pull a lever to divert the train so that five lives are saved and one person is killed–but this time the one person who will be killed is your mother or your brother. What would you do in this case? And what would be the right thing to do? A strict utilitarian may have to bite the bullet here and be willing to cause the death of their nearest and dearest. After all, one of the basic principles of utilitarianism is that everyone’s happiness counts equally. As Jeremy Bentham, one of the founders of modern utilitarianism put it: Everyone counts for one; no-one for more than one. So sorry mom!   But this is most definitely not what most people would do.  The majority may lament the deaths of the five innocents, but they cannot bring themselves to bring about the death of a loved one in order to save the lives of strangers. That is most understandable from a psychological point of view. Humans are primed both in the course of evolution and through their upbringing to care most for those around them.  But is it morally legitimate to show a preference for one’s own family? This is where many people feel that strict utilitarianism is unreasonable and unrealistic.  Not only will we tend to naturally favor our own family over strangers, but many think that we ought to. For loyalty is a virtue, and loyalty to one’s family is about as basic a form of loyalty as there is. So in many people’s eyes, to sacrifice family for strangers goes against both our natural instincts and our most fundamental moral intuitions.

The Legacy Of The Civil War Essay - 1488 Words

The Civil War was one of the most bloody and divisive conflicts in United States’ history. While the conflict may have spanned over four years, its origins date back to the birth of the nation. The fracturing of the early political system on the basis of location, party, economic visions were the beginning of fundamental differences between the states. As the political, social, and economic patterns developed throughout the nation, the regional and ideological differences only deepened, leading to the inevitable division of the Union and its populace. One of the primary long term causes for the Civil War was the nation’s early economic division. Specifically, those of the Hamiltonian and Jeffersonian models of development. Alexander Hamilton believed in the development of a powerful state, especially in relation to manufacturing goods as a means of sustaining the economy and promoting global trade. In the creation of an industrialized nation, Hamilton hoped to encourage independence from other nations. (Lecture, 10/17/16) This economic model and its subsidization were the foundation for the popular Northern ideal of the United States becoming a world power. While this economic vision became extremely successful in the Northeast, it failed to gain traction in the South. The South, adhering to the Jeffersonian vision, felt that widespread industrialization and the involvement in global economies lead to moral corruption and infringement on the individual’s right toShow MoreRelatedThe Legacy Of The Civil War1556 Words   |  7 Pagesthan providing all the information in words, adding visual effects were a relief to the eyes. Both the American Christianity and the legacy of the Civil War led to the development of modern republican government. The federal government declared the Civil War. They waged it both in effort to end slavery and in hopes of reuniting the split nation. Following the Civil War, the central government withdrew again - the South, in turmoil and confusion, threatened to break up into riotous anarchy and the federalRead MoreThe Legacy Of The Civil War1827 Words   |  8 Pagesto preserve its institution eventually brought our country into a period of bloodshed. The obvious answer is that the war brought along freedom of around four million people in which altered the lives of Americans, however there is a great deal more to be said about the legacy of the Civil War. Even now, the war creates a lasting shadow that continues to impact America. The war transformed the political, social, and economic scene, and led to advancements in technology and health-care that createdRead MoreThe Leg acy Of The Civil War Essay1471 Words   |  6 Pages The year is 1865, Lincoln is dead, and through some convoluted, insane process I am now the President. God help us all. I am faced with the challenge of uniting a fractured nation, war-torn, weary, and directionless. For all the guff Lincoln gave about preserving the union, he did a terrible job. Yes, we are physically one nation, but dominion under continual threat of violence is precisely what our forefathers fought against in the Revolution. If I had been president, this would never have beenRead MoreThe Legacy Of The Civil War2375 Words   |  10 PagesAfter the following victory of the Northern Unionist over the Confederate forces in the Civil War, the current president of USA Abraham Lincoln had followed through with his Emancipation Proclamation this time of period was soon to be known as the Reconstruction era. Through these actions of Abraham Lincoln this had resulted in the passing of amendments to the constitution in which where 13th,14th, 15th these amendments had given African Americans the one thing they had been long aching for and workedRead MoreThe Legacy Of The Civil War2131 Words   |  9 PagesThe Civil War left the entire nation in disarray. Over six hundred thousand soldiers were dead, reconstruction was to be started, and the nation was further divided. During this time, Abraham Lincoln was the President of the United States and he was going to make the Union whole once again. His plans were cut sho rt however, by the tragic and sudden assassination at Ford’s Theatre in 1865. Abraham Lincoln was the most influential leader in United States history; his death impacted millions of peopleRead MoreThe Legacy Of The Civil War1508 Words   |  7 Pagesmore than 620,000 Union and Confederate soldiers were massacred. In only four years America annihilated the number of American soldiers killed in all other wars combined. America experienced her first full scale house division. The people were in such confusion, Reconstruction Acts had to be used to bring the country back together. Civil War introduced a split country, breaks of states from the union, the South denying rights to emancipated slaves, improving the lifestyle for African Americans, deathRead MoreThe Legacy Of The Civil War907 Words   |  4 PagesThe Civil War was one of the most controversial periods in American history. As a result of the controversy, there have been many theories that explain the cause of the wa r. Most theories state the causes of this conflict arose from geographic, economic, political, and even social differences. Tensions over slavery had been building for decades, and every time a new state in the West was added, there was an extremely tense debate over whether or not slavery would be permitted in the new state. AmericansRead MoreThe Legacy Of The Civil War Essay1593 Words   |  7 PagesLloyd Garrison describes few of many changes that occurred after the Civil War, including the abolishment of slavery and the African American being granted for the first time in history the right to vote. As the civil war came to an end, the United States began to establish an undivided nation. This era known as the reconstruction era is described as â€Å"meaning literally the rebuilding of a shattered nation. (verterans of the civil movment, n.d.) Reconstruction’s main goal was to reintroduce the SouthRead MoreThe Legacy Of The Civil War1422 Words   |  6 Pages​The devastating years of the Civil War finally came to an end. African Americans becoming enslaved and having freedom was a huge development during reconstruction. Freedom had important changes in African American lives, education and religious practices. Due to Abraham Lincoln emancipation of slavery, freedom became a reality for many slaves. The republicans had a great impact on the reconstruction of the Civil War by creating Freedmen’s Bureau, passing the fourteen and fifteenth amendment andRead MoreThe Legacy Of The Civil War1755 Words   |  8 PagesTimes of war often debut new technology that shapes the future. Seeing as how the Civil War was known as the first modern war, it is appropriate to say that much new technological advancement was made. Behind every piece of new technology or idea, there is a person or team that dedicated their time to the development. When it comes to the Civil War aeronautics and much other future advancement, Thaddeus S. C. Lowe is the man be hind it. Lowe was an integral part in the success of the aeronautics division

Leadership in People Management in Hospitality and Tourism Free Essays

We should ask ourselves a question, Are leaders born or made? The answer to this question is, we can only be born with certain qualities which make us good leaders instinctively but true leaders are the ones who develop their skill. Having good leadership skills to lead a good team of hospitality professionals is absolutely necessary and quite a daunting task. A hospitality team leader has have a good sense of judgement and direction and he has to be an inspiration to his team to make their true capabilities prosper. We will write a custom essay sample on Leadership in People Management in Hospitality and Tourism or any similar topic only for you Order Now There are certain guidelines which are followed by successful hospitality team leaders: 1. Test the waters: a team leader has to find out what people think about your style of management. Getting a good feedback from the hospitality team is essential in an open environment. 2. Good Listening: The team will have certain grievances and it is the duty of a good hospitality team leader to understand and try to solve those issues. 3. Effective Communication: in order to develop into a good leader a hospitality professional has to be able to be a great listener. . Be a people’s person: a hospitality team leader should be able to understand what are the capabilities of his team. 5. Be a role model: your team should be able to invest faith in you that you will do what you say. 6. Involvement of team: A hospitality team leader becomes a good team leader only when he involves his team in the decision making process. 7. Success evaluation should be on the basis of your team: in hospitality, it is very important for the team leader to know the strengths and weaknesses of his team. How to cite Leadership in People Management in Hospitality and Tourism, Essays

In the play Macbeth by William Shakespeare, Lady M Essay Example For Students

In the play Macbeth by William Shakespeare, Lady M Essay acbeth unconsciously uses Macbeth and others as a shield for guilt. When she wants something but doesnt have the guts to perform the task herself, she calls upon anyone but herself to do it. She thinks that this will erase her conscience of any guilt it has on it, but the shield is faulty.The first and most obvious of all places where this shield is placed is in the first two acts where Lady Macbeth is trying to convince her husband to kill King Duncan and become King of Scotland. She persuades by attacking Macbeths manliness,Was the hope drunkWherein you dressed yourself? Hath it slept since?And wakes it now, to look so green and paleAt what it did so freely? From this timeSuch I account thy love. Art thou afeardTo be the same in thine own act and valorAs thou art in desire? Wouldst thou have thatWhich thou esteemst the ornament of lifeAnd live a coward in thine own esteem,Letting I dare not wait upon I would,Like the poor cat I th adage?(I, vii, 39-49)By doing this, she manages to get Macbeth to kill King Duncan, however, in the end, she knows she is just as guilty as he is. Her guilt emerges in her visions of blood remaining on her hands,The Thane of Fife had a wife. Where isshe now? What, will these hands neer be clean? Nomore o that, my lord, no more o that. You mar allwith this starting. (V, I, 44-47)Another less obvious place where Lady Macbeth uses others to shield her guilt is when Banquo is murdered. Both MacBeth and Lady MacBeth discuss their fear of Banquo knowing too much, and Lady MacBeth resolves to do nothing and leaves the chore up to her husband. After finding out about it, Lady MacBeth tells herself it wasnt her fault, but deep inside she knows it is just as much her as it is MacBeth who killed Banquo,Wash your hands. Put on your night-gown. Look not so pale. I tell you yet again, Ban-quos buried; he cannot come out on s grave.(V, I, 65-68)These examples show how Lady MacBeth used her husband to shield away the guilt. What she didnt expect was that it wouldnt work, and the blow of the guilt from murdering so many people strictly for power was too much for her weak shield. Emotionally she suffered and it drove her to talking her own life. She ineffectively tried to block off what was destined to come her way.